The poor and racial minorities have the wherewithal to receive welfare benefits, but it is an excessive burden for them to obtain a photo id? Someone is lying or strictly and unforgivingly incompetent.

Well, now we know why there are indigent and even homeless Americans who receive less or no benefits compared to illegal immigrants and other ineligible individuals. It is further unfortunate that the cost of this massive fraud has been a redistributed cost to every American, in education, medical care, and throughout the economy and government.

Oh well. Whether Americans choose it or not, they will exchange their liberty for submission with benefits, thanks to individuals who are incapable of self-moderating behavior and who dream of instant gratification.

I do believe that getting an ID should not be burdensome. It ought to be provided free of charge, paid for by general tax money -- because it is required for so many things, including the use of public facilities like libraries and courts.

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

The list of "approved" IDs in these laws (typically written by ALEC) is short and excludes many IDs people have and use.

The few IDs allowed involve expense to obtain, in dollars and/or time. When GOPs run states, they make it even more difficult. For example, in Wisconsin, after they passed Voter ID, they shut down a lot of DOT retail outlets around the state. Oddly enough, these were often in Democratic areas. Funny how that works.

Remember that district in Texas when the Democrats stole the election from Nixon? All the people who didn't get to vote early showed up at the end of the day and voted *in alphabetical order*. But nobody was disenfranchised there, not one person.

It would appear the poor have a very strong class action case against the TSA - who won't let them on a plane without proper ID - which now, it is ruled, disproportionately impacts them. Entering Federal buildings, buying medicine, buying liquor, buying cigarettes all unfairly favors those that clear the numerous burdensome hurdles necessary to obtain an ID. Any attorneys around?

Presumably, Texas will appeal to the SCOTUS. Whether they could obtain effective relief in time to use the Texas voter ID law in this year's election seems doubtful, though.

Texas was the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that its voter ID law complied with the Voting Rights Act's requirements. The 3-judge district court denied that relief, finding (basically) that Texas had to prove that the voter ID law would not deter any minority voter from exercising the franchise. Texas failed to meet its burden of proof, said the court, and so denied the requested declaratory judgment. There is thus no order from the lower court telling Texas to do anything, and thus nothing that the SCOTUS could stay pending full review.

Because compliance with the voter ID law would impose some element of cost (certainly a loss of time as well as small amounts of money for those voters not already in possession of a valid ID), it follows as a matter of basic economics that a conceded increase in costs will likely result in decrease in consumption (i.e., exercising the right to vote). If you raise the price of something, you always get less of it -- a familiar (and familiarly Republican) argument.

Texas offered a variety of arguments as to why the standard should be something else -- that the burden was too minimal to matter, that voters who elected not to get the required ID were effectively choosing not to vote, just as those who don't vote because the burden of registering is not worth the benefit of voting, etc.

The 3-judge court brushed all of that aside, citing some older SCOTUS decisions, holding that very little in the way of impact on voting was required to trigger Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. One thing that will help Texas if it appeals is the strong rhetoric in the court's decision, sharply criticizing Texas. It's an odd note, and one that the court didn't have to sound. It makes what could have been seen as just a routine decision turning of a failure of proof seem a bit more of a political hatch job.

I suspect that if Texas takes the case to the SCOTUS, one of its arguments will be to attack those older decisions, and perhaps the entire Voting Rights Act structure, as outdated. To borrow Ryan's phrase from last night, the VRA's insult to federalism, justified by references to long-ago history of race-based efforts to prevent minorities from voting, is another example of tying to sail on yesterday's wind. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

It's very similar to the argument in Fisher v. Texas (where UT is taking the opposite side), where the plaintiff is arguing (in essence) that the 25-year limit for the expiration of race-based affirmative action described by Justice O'Connor about 10 years ago should be advanced a bit.

All in all, it's looking like the SCOTUS term for 2012-13 may have just gotten a little more interesting.

The funny part of this photo ID debate is watching conservatives express wonder that there are people who do not have one of the very limited photo IDs.

It shows an inability to appreciate that there are people in this world who live different lives than the conservative.

It's really funny to watch lefties go crazy imagining vast swaths of Americans being disenfranchised because they can't produce a valid ID. Who are these people? Can you produce anyone who cannot provide or easily get a valid ID?

It's really funny that lefties take their frenzied imaginations for truth, rather than simply make actual observations and, you know, prove that getting an ID is such a burden.

Well then he should wire in their votes too. It's a damned burden to get off the couch just to vote. They could get lost and nobody would know who they are or where they live. That's a tragedy just waiting to happen.

The names you have for each other are stupid. Who would want to join your group when you're so given to childish names?

Did you see the item on Drudge about the deaf kid who was asked to change his name because it looks too much like a gun? My name looks like a gun too. My name starts out a B tapped on the chest and pulled forward into a U. The change from a B to a U looks like a gun. It would look even more like a gun if the thumb was sticking out so I'm supposing the boy's name included an L. Probably an L and U, that combination would produce a gun. Anyway, I don't know what came of it. Easy enough to change, it's just odd to demand it. Kelly told me her new friends changed her name to incorporate her job as hair cutter. Her new name involves a K as scissors and she was well chuffed with her new name. But back to the point, these name changes I can abide and I could join their group the name changing gun boy and Kelly's name changing friends, but these childish mean spirited name changes I cannot so these groups are not for me.

Chip Ahoy (1:35):I think you're giving too much credit to AL when you say that "'Republicants, Konservatives and Tea Partistas' are not offensive terms, rather they display a disturbed immature thought process, a distortion at work." The first is indeed just childish, but spelling America with a K (as in German) has traditionally (as with the New Left) meant implying that Americans - or the particular Americans you're abusing - are Nazis. And "tea partistas" seems to be designed after 'Sandinistas' and 'Peronistas', implying that your opponents are Latin American dictators, or would like to be. Neither is innocently childish, and both illustrate not only AL's "melty downy" state (excellent phrase) but his utterly contemptible dishonesty, fanaticism, and general coprophagic tendencies.

Not contrarian at all. I mean if you can keep someone from voting who has voted for years, what fun is a democracy.

The poor fools on here who think this is just about the poor and stupid are just hoping and praying that is the case. There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote".

This is just a case of keeping people from voting. Nothing more or less.

Sorry, I skipped a step in my argument: spelling America with a K (which AL did not do) implies German which implies Nazi, and I really can't think of any reason to spell Conservative with a K (as AL did) unless he is trying to do the same with that word.

If you shoot a guy in the face you can be sent to prison for a very long time, even if it's the first guy you ever killed. When will the courts overturn the strict, unforgiving burden of state laws against murder?

The belief that poor and minorities are unable to obtain a photo ID is simply laughable. The complete helplessness that the Democrat party attributes to them should be a mark of embarrasment and instead they wear as a badge of pride. Pathetic is too kind a word.

The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years. Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

No, we don't. Conservatives dislike the right to vote and seek to strip enough people of that right to win an election. That's what this is all about.

I do believe that getting an ID should not be burdensome. It ought to be provided free of charge, paid for by general tax money -- because it is required for so many things, including the use of public facilities like libraries and courts.

8/30/12 1:11 PM

BarryD said... If getting an ID is too burdensome to impose this requirement for voting, then it's too burdensome in general. That should be fixed -- and ID should then be required for voting.

It's just odd that nobody seems to object to the photo ID requirements for doing so many things that anyone -- no matter how poor -- does, on a daily basis.

8/30/12 1:13 PM

AlphaLiberal said... Dear Konservatives:

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

The list of "approved" IDs in these laws (typically written by ALEC) is short and excludes many IDs people have and use.

The few IDs allowed involve expense to obtain, in dollars and/or time. When GOPs run states, they make it even more difficult. For example, in Wisconsin, after they passed Voter ID, they shut down a lot of DOT retail outlets around the state. Oddly enough, these were often in Democratic areas. Funny how that works.

In a related development, the same federal court voted 2-1 that poor people are too poor to buy alcohol, tobacco products, open checking accounts, or drive, claiming that expecting such activities from the poor are strict, unforgiving burdens. They therefore have declared that all poor must sit at home and stare at the wall until it's time to vote.

Republicans need to be much more careful about what they name things, or allow things to be named. Take a page out of the (so called) Progressives playbook, e.g."The Affordable Care Act" , "Pro Choice", etc.

Instead of calling it the big brother-ish sounding "Voter ID Law", they should have called it something like "The One Person, One Vote Assurance Act", which, after all, is what it is.

To be against something called Voter ID, could be seen as somewhat noble, and freedom enhancing.

To be opposed to "One Man, One Vote"? Well, dare I say, that sounds almost racist.

"Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws. To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge."

This is similar to the recent Wisconsin voter ID decision in that it hangs largely on the cost or "burden" of obtaining a photo id.

It seems clear that any state that wants to require voter ID must have an aggressive policy for ID issuance which minimizes or eliminates even the small costs of obtaining that ID.

It's doable. But those states must face reality and accept the costs to them of eliminating the "burden." For example, free birth certificates, expanded DMV offices and hours, and an outreach program to low income areas.

This may offend some sensibilities and cost money, but it is the only way forward.

If people are so poor that they don't have ID, I'm going to presume that they are receiving some kind of public support. Is it true, then, that you can receive public support without being able to prove who you are?

Not contrarian at all. I mean if you can keep someone from voting who has voted for years, what fun is a democracy.

The poor fools on here who think this is just about the poor and stupid are just hoping and praying that is the case. There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote".

This is just a case of keeping people from voting. Nothing more or less.

And there you have it. Voter fraud is laughable to the left, because they claim there are so few cases of it.

You know, I wouldn't give one good goddamn if there was only ONE case of voter fraud; the idea that an election can be rigged or stolen attacks the foundations of a representative democracy. We need to trust that our elected officials got there honestly and not through bribes or forgery, otherwise we devolve to the status of a tinpot banana republic where Dear Leader always gets 99.9% of the vote.

You're the one who's prostituting democracy, house; you and your fellow travelers like garbage, AL and Lindsey. So long as you win, you don't care how much mistrust and apathy you sow.

"And there you have it. Voter fraud is laughable to the left, because they claim there are so few cases of it.

"You know, I wouldn't give one good goddamn if there was only ONE case of voter fraud..." And yada, yada about "prostituting democracy." Interesting phrase. Don't quite get it.

Who's laughing, BTW? No one. You made that up. (Big surprise.) Constitutionalists take the right to vote seriously. You, apparently, don't.

I suppose, to use an analogy, if there was only ONE case of a guilty person getting released because of the 4th or 5th Constitutional Amendements, you'd say that this attacks the foundation of democracy.

Texas should have gone for broke and argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. If they had done that, then they would have won this case on the issue of whether photo-i.d. has a disparate impact on minorities because these panel of judges would not want to touch the other argument.

This reminds me of those liberal lawyers who didn't raise the Commerce Clause argument in their partial birth abortion case.

If you make them free and have people do all the transportation, etc needed to get some one without a picture ID, a picture ID provided, it will not be enough. There is always a reason, not alternatives will work.

So faKing: "But there is no blanket "right to vote" in the Constitution." WTF? Pay attention. You should base your rebuttals on arguments that are actually made, rather than those that are imaginary.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about a "right to vote" that "constitutionalists" would care about, presumably because of something in the actual Constitution. I don't know how I could have missed your actual point. What was it, again?

Look lefties, just explain why you think ID should not be required to vote, but should be to get your legal benefits, food stamps, S.S., be on a jury, get on a plane, get a job, to get into a public building (your public building).

There have been dozens or hundreds of stories on this subject. But given you are probably on a strict information diet of FoxNews, Breitbart and Althouse, you would understandably be clueless.

Exactly what is so burdensome about getting an ID? That people claim to have certain burdens is no surprise, but claiming that you have a burden and that you actually have a burden are two different things.

Exactly how hard it is to get a drivers license? In MD, it's a straight forward affair. You show up with proof of residence, which can be simply an mailed envelope that has been mailed to you, an SSN and $45. Then you get to take a test, written and driving. 95% of households in America own cars and 100% have access to at least one car.

Any valid ID is all that is required for voting.

You can start learning here, if you dare.

I am learned. Are you?

The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years.

From a government employment perspective, I would prefer going back 80 years. The New Deal sucked the life out of the country, as is evident from the length and depth of the Great Depression.

Conservatives dislike the right to vote

Wrong. Conservatives dislike the lefty usage of dead people and illegals and multiple voting to stuff their ballots. What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid that the legal citizens of this country reject lefty values? I guess if I were you, I'd be afraid too.

"One person, one vote" is heresy to the right wing.

Except this is exactly the point of voter ID. "One person, one vote" is heresy to the left, which prefers "one person, no votes if you're not voting for a democrat and one person, person many votes if you are, as well as dead person, at least one vote for a democrate, as well as illegal alien, at least one vote for a democrat."

So faKing: Your avatar. Sweet. Are you going to dress like that when you stand outside polling places to iterrogate racial minorities and old people about whether they are qualified to vote?

Look, even though election day might be The Longest Day, I'm not The Pilgrim to step Out Of The Shadows For The Greater Good of God. In a Different World, The Legacy of past vote fraud would be nil. But the need for vigilance is Brigher Than A Thousand Suns, and, to be pithy, These Colours Don't Run.

The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.

I would like to challenge any honest person to try, without hyperbole, sarcasm and insult, to explain and justify why requiring identification for voting is unjust but requiring identification for the exercise of other constitutionally-protected rights and government privileges, such as gun ownership, entering federal buildings and courts, air travel, banking, check cashing, driving, is acceptable.

I can see only two possible reasons for opposing voter ID:

1. The "wrong" people (Republicans, conservatives, &c) are for it, so tribalistic loyalties require Democrat/liberal opposition.

2. It makes cheating more difficult.

I'd hate to think the reason is number 2, so will any of you so-called liberals actually be honest and admit that the reason for your opposition is number 1?

BTW a photo ID is required to purchase cold medicine that provides any kind of effective symptomatic relief.

I believe this is an excessive burden, and frankly I care 1000 times more that a mom with a few kids can get them some Sudafed than that we try in vain to stop some dirtbag from voluntarily doing meth -- which everyone knows is bad shit anyway.

So where is the Democratic Party outcry about this undue, and sometimes cruel, burden?

Palladian wrote:The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.

This is a little long, but an important positive from the decision. It seems to say that public confidence in the election process is an adequate justification for voter ID requirements. No proof of prior fraud is necessary:

"It is crucial, we think, that the Court held in Crawford that Indiana could act to prevent in-person voter fraud despite the fact that “[t]he record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Id. at 194 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Court emphatically held that “[t]here is no question about the legitimacy or importance of” this interest. Id. at 202-03 21 (emphasis added). After all, “the ‘electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.’ ” Id. at 197 (quoting Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections § 2.5 (Sept. 2005)). Given this, we reject the argument, urged by the United States at trial, that the absence of documented voter fraud in Texas somehow suggests that Texas’s interests in protecting its ballot box and safeguarding voter confidence were “pretext.” A state interest that is unquestionably legitimate for Indiana—without any concrete evidence of a problem—is unquestionably legitimate for Texas as well."

Why should you have to show a photo ID to get in a Courthouse? What purpose does that serve?

To prove people like Judge David Tatel don't think very clearly. If requiring a photo ID is a burden for poor minorities, then clearly requiring a photo ID to enter the courthouse violates amendment 14, equal protection under the laws.

I do think that if states are going to require photo id to vote then they have to subsidize the cost to acquire the photo id. In Texas, based on my brief research, only Veterans qualify for exemption from the $25 fee for an id.

the exercise of other constitutionally-protected rights and government privileges, such as gun ownership, entering federal buildings and courts, air travel, banking, check cashing, driving, is acceptable.

Why the assumption that all those onerous burdens are acceptable? Sure, citizenry has accepted them, as the govt slowly adds burdens to doing perfectly ordinary things.

Convenient, no, that all these cases being decided against vote ID and redistricting are in red, purple swing states, including WI? And that, like WI, the lower courts are deciding to rule against them with no time left to appeal them before the 2012 election. The Democrats know that if Obama wins again, he will have the capability to do irreversible "fundamental transformation" to this country before 2016 so they are pulling out all the stops (as coverage of the GOP convention also confirms.)

The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

Every state I know of has a non-driver state ID, with the same identity-proof requirements as a DL, but not conferring the right to drive on public roads. I do not drive. I have a state ID. The largest difficulty in obtaining one is generally the wait at the DMV.

In some states there's a fee, but IIRC in GA they explicitly made the card free, and even sent mobile units to your door if you had no transportation.

Why would you not want free state-certified ID? It's not as though the sole purpose for one is voting, as anyone who's tried to, oh, get a legal job, open a bank account, cash a check (Social Security or otherwise), or do a host of other fairly common activities must realize.

Cost cannot possibly be the "strict, unforgiving burden". The welfare system doles out several trillion dollars annually. Tens of billions to illegal aliens and their families and friends located in their original jurisdictions. Thousands monthly to individuals through programs sponsored by HUD. Nearly a trillion to subsidize medical care. Fraudulent Medicaid and food stamp claims to pay for cellular phone service and other luxuries.

Actually, the greater concern is that despite several trillion dollars redistributed, there are still indigent and homeless Americans. Either the funds are being exploited by direct beneficiaries through massive waste, fraud, and abuse, and/or the service providers are taking extraordinary cut of the proceeds.

I wonder what Americans think of this massive fraud perpetrated by our government and its private-sector affiliates. Do they concern themselves with covert taxation, including the 10% of GDP federal deficit. It's one thing to suffer involuntary exploitation. It's quite another to suffer for the purposes of progressive corruption.

When the PA law was voted in I read an article that said it would be difficult for some to obtain a state ID because there were not Dept of Transportation offices in every county. Also that when at a DOT office, 'regular' business would take precedence over obtaining state IDs.

The screechy progressive hysterics are strong on this issue! You're all really counting on the fraud factor, huh?

1. Preventing vote fraud is not a bad thing. Other countries value the integrity of the vote. Mexico requires a photo id. Canada has very very strict vote identification rules. Are Canada and Mexico raaaaacist because of this?

2. A photo id is not an unreasonable burden on anyone. It's not a national id card which I know a lot of people have issues with. 16 year olds regularly get them. If you want something, like government benefits or a driver's license, then you do what is necessary to make that happen (like get a photo id). Driver's license is not the only photo id. so stop whining about blind people and old people who don't drive. Claiming that a photo id is an even greater burden on minorities is just embarrassing. Like everyone will stop making eye contact and edge away from you embarrassing.

3. Vote fraud is very well documented. Most recently, the Franken situation. ACORN has been dissolved (in the wake of obvious fraudulence) but its component parts have since been decentralized (ostensibly) and reconstituted. The vote fraud, and efforts to block reasonable anti-fraud measures, will continue.

Who is suppressing voters? It's an I.D. You need to quit thinking that adults, no matter how poor, are incapable of obtaining one. I personally don't care whether these laws are there or not, but if people are whining because it is too difficult to do basic things like obtain a photo i.d., the country is in a lot of trouble.

Here's the pertinent part from AL's first link:"'I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID,' Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with 'VETERAN' and an American flag patch on his coat as well."Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. 'I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,' he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip."'I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for.'"Does AL think that a jacket with Marine Corps insignia should count as voter ID? Even if the wearer is underage or not a citizen or a convicted felon?And note that the man "refuses to show" a voter ID, and rather clearly implies that he has one. So if he can't vote, it's because he's being an asshole who won't show his ID, not a poor unfortunate who doesn't have one to show.

"There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote"."

How would you know if voter fraud took place?

Wherever I have voted (WA, VT & MA) it has been the same: You give your name and some old lady looks you up on a list, crosses your name off and hands you a ballot.

We saw from Althous' post on some activist group giving you a list of neighbors who vote and those that don't, that who votes and who doesn't is available knowledge. So the way to cheat is to look for names of people who never vote and then go vote in their place. This is probably why Demcrats always seem to oppose cleaning up the voter rolls.

Reminds me of something Mark Steyn said, if I can remember it correctly, something like, we're living in a country that requires its citizens to buy health insurance, but doesn't require them to prove that they're citizens.

150 comments so far, and although Palladian and I both ask straight up for the argument justifying ID required for other things but not voting, there has not been one explanation or even an attempt at it from you hypocritical, dishonest, disingenuous, cheating lefties. I call you out. If that description does not fit, then answer the damned question.

Voter fraud is extremely rare in the US. So why are Republicans pursuing voter ID laws so adamantly? Because Republicans have a hard time getting certain people to vote for them. Therefore it is a lot easier to insure that those certain people aren’t allowed to vote at all. Truth.

But on the plus side, it is happening in Texas, so it isn't going to impact the election outcome. :)

Except for local/county races in the big urban areas, where the elected Democrats cheat on each other already. There are some competitive CDs (west of San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and west of Austin), but the remaining districts are locked in by re-districting.

Look, the writing on the wall in the opinion is that if states are going to impose these requirements, the identification should be free and easy to obtain (i.e., you should be able to obatin a voter id without having to meet the stringent requirements for obtaining, say, a passport). The court had a problem with (1) imposing costs on poor people and (2) an overly-restrictive list of what "counts" as primary and/or secondary forms of identificaion.

I've seen a lot of comments about how people have to show id to obtain food stamps and various other government benefits. If an id sufficies for, say, obtaining Medicaid, why shouldn't it suffice at the voting booth? There's no good answer for that, yet the Texas legislature rejected a number of amendments to that effect. Wonder why they did that?

Voter fraud is extremely common in the US. So why are Democrats so opposed to pursuing voter ID laws so adamantly? Because Democrats have a hard time winning without fraudulant people to vote for them. Truth.

No, to Republicans the feature is it would be harder for illegal aliens to vote. Your racism card is worn out - all it gets anymore is eye rolls, and people on the left don't believe it as they cynically attempt to derail needed reform.

Can I assume that those of you who are against voter IDs are also protesting that the Red Cross and local blood banks are being discriminatory and racist, because they require a photo ID before you can donate blood? And that these people who wouldn't be able to vote are also not allowed to purchase cigarettes or alcohol?

Can I assume that those of you who are against voter IDs are also protesting that the Red Cross and local blood banks are being discriminatory and racist, because they require a photo ID before you can donate blood?

I'm not against requiring voter IDs, so long as they can be obtained without a lot hassle. Preventing voter fraud is a legitimate goal. But I don't think that is the real reason why a lot of these state legislators support requiring voter IDs. If it was the reason, the Texas legislature would not have rejected some of the amendments they did (like waiving fees for indigent people who need to obtain the required underlying documentation before acquirng a voter ID). If the goal is preventing voter fraud, why would anyone reject that amendment?

I love the irony that someone was able to get Eric Holder's ballot without having to show an ID. That was, I believe, D.C., where the libs would have you believe that most of the black majority there are incapable of getting government issued photo IDs. And, yes, where illegal voting may just be the reason that it is run like a 3rd world country.

Look, the writing on the wall in the opinion is that if states are going to impose these requirements, the identification should be free and easy to obtain (i.e., you should be able to obtain a voter id without having to meet the stringent requirements for obtaining, say, a passport). The court had a problem with (1) imposing costs on poor people and (2) an overly-restrictive list of what "counts" as primary and/or secondary forms of identification.

As to (1), make it free, as GA did. As to (2), why? Are we seriously more concerned with identifying US citizens abroad than we are with making sure that the people voting in US elections are US citizens? I don't see any problem at all with making the evidentiary requirements for voter ID as strict as those for getting a US passport.

mccullough -The country is in a lot of trouble. If Romney is the best the Republicans can produce and Obama is the best the Democrats can offer, it should go without saying that the country is in trouble.

But let's get back to spending a ton of time and energy arguing about problems that aren't actual problems (e.g., voter fraud, gay marriage, etc...) and keep ignoring the fundamental failures of our political system. I can't wait until January 2013 to see what our newly elected president and congress won't be able to accomplish.

As to (2), why? Are we seriously more concerned with identifying US citizens abroad than we are with making sure that the people voting in US elections are US citizens? I don't see any problem at all with making the evidentiary requirements for voter ID as strict as those for getting a US passport.

Because a lot of people don't have their birth certificates or social security cards, and can't really afford to obtain replacements. My real point, somewhat inartfully articulated, is that if a government issued ID sufficies in one arena (i.e., Medicaid or Medicare), it should suffice for voting. For some reason the folks in Texas didn't agree.

I'm fine with these laws -- I think most reasonable people are. But either make it free (and make it free to obtain replacement birth certificates, etc.) for indigent individuals, or allow people to use the government-issued IDs they already have. I can't understand the opposition to these concepts, which makes me think that the real goal is to make it harder for certain people to vote.

I do think voter fraud is more prevalent that the numbers suggest. The reason for that is that I have voted in every election since 2000 in the city of Chicago where watching voter fraud is a spectator sport. The cases are not prosecuted because the district attorney declines to enforce the law. The public statements they can make claiming they have no evidence are very easy to justify.

I think voter id laws are entirely reasonable if the cost to obtain voter id is zero for everyone that doesn't already have a drivers license or a state id. The reason for that is because the cost you force people to pay will be in effect a poll tax.

I can't understand the opposition to these concepts, which makes me think that the real goal is to make it harder for certain people to vote.

A key to understanding how the advocates of voter id are functioning is to look at the organizations that push for voter id and to check if their model legislation does indeed address the concerns you raise.

I can assure you that as someone that has worked with organizations that do author model legislation that one of their major focuses is in writing legislation that will pass judicial scrutiny. Not all legislators and governors though are on board with that condition. Sometimes they want the politics to overrule the case law.

150 comments so far, and although Palladian and I both ask straight up for the argument justifying ID required for other things but not voting, there has not been one explanation or even an attempt at it from you hypocritical, dishonest, disingenuous, cheating lefties.

The fact that someone poses a question--and in this instance, a question that I consider silly--does not give me or anyone else an obligation to answer.

Furthermore, because your question is silly, I wonder if you're being obtuse as a way to waste my time.

Those considerations aside, there are different reasons (valid or otherwise) for requiring ID for each of the various actions that have been mentioned. I don't intend to list reasons for every example you list. Generally speaking, ID may be required when the safety and security of fellow citizens is directly enhanced. ID may be required to ensure the safety of minors. Requiring an ID may be considered a significantly smaller relative burden for activities that typically require a relatively larger financial outlay (for example, air travel as opposed to voting). Lastly, again speaking generally, ID requirements for privileges (as opposed to rights) requires a completely different set of considerations.

I'm pretty sure voter fraud is commoner than most people think, because I've been encouraged to commit it by a Democratic campaign worker who was offended that I was offended at the suggestion. That was thirty years ago, but I'm still offended. I blogged about it ten years ago here.

"Why the assumption that all those onerous burdens are acceptable? Sure, citizenry has accepted them, as the govt slowly adds burdens to doing perfectly ordinary things."

Not an unreasonable question, but voting is unique. Each citizen has one vote to exercise. The government doesn't have any votes, only you and I have votes. Your vote belongs to you, and it's not the government's to give away to anyone who wanders by and wants to use it. That's not a burden placed on the citizenry, it's an obligation placed on the government.

And this extends to making certain that no one is permitted to cancel-out your legitimate vote with a someone else's fake or stolen vote. You don't care? Well, your vote is yours, to exercise or not. But if someone votes twice, and we know that there are no "extra" votes for you or I or the government to pass out, then the voters have obviously still been defrauded. And the government is not permitted to defraud citizens, even if I say it's OK.

Never underestimate the inclination of Althouse readers to ask stupid questions.

If you read and understood what I wrote before, you'd know I already answered this question. In the case of gun purchases, consideration of the safety and security of the public is an important consideration. Whether or not consideration of public safety and security should lead to an ID requirement is irrelevant. The point is that judging the balance between the burden of the ID requirement on the individual and the public interest served by requiring an ID is different than it is for voting.